Bill Clintong and Janet Sterno Fired 93 US Attorneys in one day, is that worse than what Bush did?

Question

Here's one for you braindead hypocrite lefty morons..."In 1993, shortly after she was installed as attorney general, Janet Reno sent an unmistakable signal that her Justice Department would primarily serve the political ends of Bill Clinton rather than the ends of justice. At once, she fired all 93 of the country's United States attorneys. According to no less an authority than Ted Olson, President George Bush's chief post-election attorney, Reno's move was extreme and unprecedented. "In order to maintain continuity in thousands of pending prosecutions, and as a statement to the public that elections do not influence routine law enforcement, the nation's top prosecutors are traditionally replaced only after their successors have been located, appointed, and confirmed by the Senate. On instructions from the White House (she claimed it was a 'joint' decision; no one believes that), Reno ordered all 93 to leave in ten days.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22515

Answer 1

Great point, even though it will be lost on the liberals in this country. People like Bill Clinton because he was suave, smooth talking, and pretended to be a young person. What they don't realize is that usually those types of people are also liars and schemers. They have gotten so suave by lying to people and getting away with it. What Clinton actually did in office was absolutely nothing. He rode the good wave until there was nothing left, then blamed the next President (Bush) for the misfortune in the country. I love my country, and I love the people in it, but I'm starting not to respect quite a few. The hatred in this country has to stop. I have NEVER seen such childishness as I have with these anti-Bush stickers, websites, and such. The respect for the office of the President of the United States is gone, and it saddens me.

Answer 2

Every president who replaces someone of the opposite party fires all the US attorneys and thousands of other political appointees. Bush fired all 93 when he took office.

But only 4 times in the past 25 years has any president fired a US Attorney for performance reasons (which was what was cited in this current case). Yet, 7 or 8 were fired in one fell swoop last year - an unprecedented occurance and nobody in the administration seems to remember who decided which ones to let go.

Talk about braindead, find out about a topic before piping off on it.

Answer 3

maximum presidents fire the attorneys on the commencing up of their term. Clinton did that yet Bush waited until a million/2 way by his 2d term. maximum presidents tell the Senate of what's occurring with the attorneys. Clinton did that. Bush tried to sneak around hoping no person could observe. curiously basically attorneys who have been on circumstances investigating incorrect doing by potential of this administration or not pursuing trumped up costs or loss of info circumstances against administration enemies have been singled out for dismissal. That smacks of partisanship. Why is it on each and every occasion Bush does something unlawful the youngsters come out of the woodwork saying "properly Clinton did it too and he did not get caught"? If Clinton did do it and wasn't caught it became into with the aid of fact Congress led by potential of neocons weren't doing their interest. usually Clinton did not do it the two yet infantile as they're the Bushbots look to purpose and deflect complaint whining like sons and daughters. If Bobby breaks a rule does that propose it somewhat is okay for each individual else to break the rule of thumb too basically with the aid of fact Bobby did not get caught? in case you're using alongside and you get to a end sign you roll by and at some point you get a cost tag for not combating could desire to you get a cost tag with the aid of fact the cop wasn't there to end you the different circumstances? If Bob kills Jon and Ned kills Sam does it make it ok for Ned to kill Sam basically with the aid of fact Bob killed Jon? I actually have a feeling if the firings of the attorneys became into an remoted incident the place somebody perhaps made a mistake the Congress does not be investigating. however the administration of George W. Bush is infamous for corruption and lies so it somewhat is not any ask your self that Congress feels they could desire to look at. it somewhat is, by potential of how Repbulicans to boot as Democrats who desire solutions.

Answer 4

OMG... Look, when new administrations take office, they usually fire people who are appointed by the previous administration so that they may appoint their own people, usually with the same party (Reagan did the same thing - your viewpoint above is very slanted to make Clinton look worse than this actually was). What's weird about the Bush/Gonzales deal is that it happened in the middle of Bush's term with people HE appointed for no apparent reason. He even appointed these people without getting them confirmed with the Senate through a clause he slipped into a massive bill. So, why would he go and do a mass firing of 8 people that he got to pick w/o anyone else's say? These are 2 different issues - even if you don't agree with what Reno and Clinton did, the argument of, "but Clinton did this...!" doesn't make Rep corruption OK!

Answer 5

It is not unusual to clean house when a new party comes in, it is unusual to fire Asst. Atty Generals on the basis that they wanted Democrats investigated for nothing more than political reasons.

When Clinton was in office, you had to get approval from the Senate, something that was not done in this case.

Then there is the fact that the Attorney General got caught in another lie. He WAS present when the firings were heard, and he received almost 2 years of white house correspondence regarding the firings!

I think it is different when an incoming president appoints his own people. This is a case of a president FIRING HIS OWN PEOPLE for political reasons!

Answer 6

Totally false. U.S. attorneys, just like everybody who serves at the pleasure of the president, submit their resignations at the end of every presidential term. Every president is perfectly justified in accepting resignations and appointing their own people at this time. Clinton did it upon taking office in '93, just like Reagan did it upon taking office in '81. Yeah, that's right! Reagan did it too!!!! These weren't "firings." That's like saying that they "fired" the previous administrations' cabinet members! No, Clinton and Reagan accepted the resignations. That's it. Nothing scandalous. Perfectly acceptable, and rather common.

What Bush did was this: 6 years into his presidency, his administration singled out a handful of attorneys who were not being politically helpful to the GOP. I believe that this is the first time EVER that politics played a role in removing a U.S. attorney in the middle of a president's term.

Let's see how many rabid conservatives give my very evenhanded answer a "thumbs down!" :-)

Answer 7

You are right, that is exactly what happen. The reason 93 were fired was to cover up for just one of them , that one person was a threat to Clinton integrity and knew to much, that one person was convicted and sent to prison and then Clinton pardoned him. Real shame that 92 others were fired because of just that one person. Slick Willie and Reno pulled it off. This is the true reasons behind that firing of the 93. Reno did a lot of covering up for Clinton his entire Adminstration. This is called double standards.

Answer 8

She did not LIE about the reasons given for the firings. There are many actions that Janet Reno took that I DID NOT approve of, but the corruption of the present administration far, far, outweighs any the Clinton administration may have committed.

Answer 9

Bush 's "patriot"act bypassed senate approval of appointees. Duh...
The prosecutors in question were pursuing indictments against Repubs and their donors. Duh...
Some of them were not ccoperating in bringing bogus charges against Dems in tight elections. Duh..
Change the channel once in a while, will ya?

Answer 10

Wow...Can you top this? All of the 93 were asked to turn in a letter of resignation...all did. Why? Because that's the way the system works. We're all the resignations accepted? No! Why? Because that's the way the system works. By turning in a letter of resignation there's no record of being 'fired'...not something one would want on his/her resume'. Very few of the 93 stopped doing their job until a replacement was located,and most of them never left. Wow...these 'wingers do go on. If you hear BS like this be certain to check it out. It's propaganda!